Please reread the argument I stated. In regards to the Ancients, your arguments without proof have no bearing and thus can be discarded without hesitation. I will have you ponder the following question:
If no genocide occurred as a result of the sundering, where did all the Ancients go after the sundering?
Stating they are sundered, thus creating new races, indicates they were fundamentally changed which would be indicative of them ceasing to exist which is tantamount to their destruction, and as it was targeted into them would constitute argument C. This fundamental change resulted in the new life created being unable to give birth to their progenitor race even when the progenitor race is involved, which constitutes D. B is the weakest, but if you believe no genocide occurred, would mean the Ancients that did survive the sundering would have been subjected to significant reductions in quality of life and mental acuity, which would mean B can be argued as plausible if not true.
Reinventing the definitions of genocide specifically to avoid calling someone who is a genocider a genocider is extremely dangerous, foolish, and makes me concerned about any watch lists you may be on. Arguing there is no genocide via sticking your head in the sand saying it doesn't exist exposes your posterior for all to see and ridicule, particularly when your defense to it is extremely flimsy and falls apart under any scrutiny when it is applied. I suggest rereading what I have stated and perhaps what constitutes genocide before making any more posts as to not expose yourself again.
